Skip to main content

Full text of "State of the University of Illinois : Chicago, Springfield, Urbana-Champaign"

See other formats



Address by David D. Henry, President, University of Illinois 



MAR 2 3 1 961 

UNlViuo.h ur luiinillS 

Presented to the Faculties of the University 

URBANA, December 3, 1959, 4:00 p.m., University Audi- 
torium — Faculty Assembly sponsored by the University 
of Illinois Chapter of the American Association of Uni- 
versity Professors. 

CHICAGO, December 8, 1959, 3:00 p.m., Chicago Under- 
graduate Division — Faculty Assembly sponsored by the 
Chicago Undergraduate Division Chapter of the Ameri- 
can Association of University Professors. 

CHICAGO, December 9, 1959, 1:00 p.m., Room 221, 
Dentistry-Medicine-Pharmacy Building, University of 
Illinois, Chicago — Address for faculty and students of 
the Chicago Professional Colleges. 


Xl(* u^C nl 

I. "A University does not live unto itself, 

In a message to the alumni in September, I stated that the University 
opened the new academic year with a sense of pride in the record just 
closed and with confidence that new marks will be established in 1959-60. 

It would be appropriate to develop that theme in this State of the 
University message — to dwell upon how the quality of the student body has 
been improved, how the quality of the faculty has been strengthened and 
the morale of the staff reinforced, the ways in which the physical plant has 
been extended and the academic program enhanced, the manner in which 
the academic reputation of the University has been heightened and the 
professional achievements enlarged. A self-scrutiny of the University, from 
any view and with any index, reveals good health, good habits, and a whole- 
some prospect for continuing strength. 


A university does not live within itself, however. Its welfare is a part 
of the condition of higher education generally, and of its neighbors in 
particular. The public climate which determines the tone and quality of 
public services as a whole ultimately controls the development of the col- 
leges and universities of a state. Thus, in discussing the State of the 
University, particularly in a period of much activity in state planning for 
higher education, we may appropriately begin with a review of some of the 
factors which in Illinois have a bearing upon the future of this institution. 



Illinois is economically able to continue to maintain a first-rate system 
of higher education and to meet the future requirements created by the 
increase in population and other social factors. 

While Illinois as a state ranks among the highest in per capita income, 
it ranks among the lowest in per capita expenditure for higher education. 
The explanation lies in part in the distribution of the college population 
between the private institutions and the state universities, with the smaller 
proportion in the latter. 

Because some private institutions plan only limited growth, it is prob- 
able that per capita expenditures for higher education in Illinois will have 
to increase at a rate greater than the rate of increase in college-age popu- 
lation. The economic capacity to do so is nowhere questioned. 


Although other states have one or two large urban centers, Illinois is 
one of the few states where over 50 per cent of its population is concen- 
trated in one metropolitan area. 

As costs of attending college away from home increase, the demand for 
higher education available to commuting students also increases. Thus both 
population distribution and economic necessity combine to create a demand 
for University service in Chicago, one of the few large cities of the nation 
without a comprehensive program of state-supported collegiate education. 
A similar problem in other metropolitan areas of Illinois is emerging. 


Although Illinois was the seat of the first junior college in the United 
States, the development of a state-wide junior college service has been 
slower than in certain other states. The result is, in view of the population 
distribution noted above, an unusually heavy demand for prompt action in 
encouraging the establishment and growth of junior colleges. 


As the demands for junior college and four-year collegiate education 
have backed up, so have the needs for non-collegiate post-high school edu- 
cation. With its diversified economy, cultural pluralism, and complex 
increasing population, Illinois needs a well-planned and comprehensive 
program for education beyond the high school, encompassing more than 
junior colleges and expansion of state universities. 


As a large, populous and prosperous state with an excellent system of 
higher education, public and private, Illinois, nonetheless, sends an unusual 
number of its young people to institutions in other states. There are over 
ten thousand more Illinois students in the public institutions of other states 
than come from other states to Illinois public higher institutions. 

As the demands upon the services of other states increase, the nature 
of student mobility from Illinois may change, and thus add to the pressures 
for rapid action in expansion noted above. Illinois will have to be prepared 
to care for more of its own youth. 


In the University of Illinois, the State has concentrated the facilities of 
the land-grant institution and the comprehensive state university. Histor- 
ically, this concentration of resources has made for good planning and 
effective service. 

Illinois is behind many other states in determining whether it will 
duplicate the comprehensive state university or whether the expansion of 
other institutions will be on the basis of allocated functions, defined in 
relationship to the needs of the state as a whole. 

In view of the accumulated pressures for expansion and the anticipated 
needs, Illinois is tardy in arriving at a decision on a state plan. 


High standards in the appraisal of higher education by the people of the 
State and the popular aspiration to have the best in educational service are 
reflected in the attitudes of legislators and State officers, in the financial 
support given and in the nonpartisan handling of educational affairs. This 
tradition is a tremendously important factor in the health of higher educa- 
tion in Illinois, and new plans for institutional relationships should not 
weaken or disturb it. Illinois is fortunate, futhermore, in that neither law 
nor tradition prevents the State from allocating as much of its income to 
higher education as the Legislature and the Governor decide. 


A part from population growth, Illinois, as a part of an economically 
promising region, is destined to continue to develop. To the existing pro- 
ductive resources of the region are added recently the rapid development 
of travel by air and transportation by way of the St. Lawrence Seaway. 

Both in basic production and in the processing of raw materials, Illinois 
plays a unique role in the economy of the entire nation. It is to be assumed 
that the State will continue to build a system of higher education com- 
mensurate with its economic status. 

Against this general setting, in the main encouraging for the long haul, 
three climatic issues will have to be dealt with in the period immediately 
ahead — and their handling will determine the University's rate of growth 
and the adequacy with which its problems are met. They are: 

1. The study of unified administration under the auspices of the Illinois 
Commission of Higher Education. 

2. The development of the Chicago Undergraduate Division. 

3. The Universities Bond Issue Referendum in November, 1960. 

II. The Study of Unified Administration 

The 71st General Assembly, with the approval of the Governor, by 
statute directed the Commission of Higher Education "to recommend to the 
General Assembly, not later than April 1, 1961, a plan for the unified 
administration of all the State controlled institutions of higher education." 
Relevant to this instruction are the powers and duties of the Commission 
as contained in the act of establishment by the 70th General Assembly: 
"to analyze the present and future aims, needs and requirements of higher 
education in the State of Illinois; ... to study the role of and the need 
for different types of institutions and programs of higher education in the 
State of Illinois with other states . . ." 


It may be assumed that this action of the Legislature reflects a broad 
public interest in the relationships of the universities and in state-wide 
planning for the future. It also reflects the citizen concern with the financial 
support required to maintain the colleges and universities and to gear up 
the educational enterprise to the necessities of the space age, as well as to 
meet population increases and increased demands for service. Higher edu- 
cation is now an instrument of national defense, international relations, 
economic strength, as well as of individual fulfilment. The public expects 
from it wise planning, prudent management and efficient utilization of 

In previous State of the University addresses, and on other occasions, I 
have stressed the need for state-wide planning in higher education in Illinois. 
Institutional expansion without professional study of the needs of the State 
as a whole or of the potential contributions of all institutions supplying 

those needs, public and private, is unwise. Responding to needs of geograph- 
ical areas outside of the context of the needs of the State as a whole is an 
inefficient way to approach satisfying the total requirements. New develop- 
ments in higher education should be based upon a view of what is needed 
by the State, as a whole, upon facts, broadly gathered, rather than local 
opinions, and upon wide consultation rather than isolated decisions. Further, 
there must be adequate machinery for interinstitutional fact finding and 

Believing in the need for state planning, representatives of the University 
of Illinois encouraged the establishment of the Illinois Commission of 
Higher Education. The University has cooperated fully with the Com- 
mission in its work. As the Commission undertakes the new studies assigned 
to it, the University of Illinois will continue to help in any way possible. 

I have indicated to others how we regard the importance of the work of 
the Commission by pointing out that the University in its own planning 
is dependent upon the answers to questions before the Commission. Should 
the University establish new branches? What kinds of new programs should 
be started and in what ways should present programs be extended? What 
should be the distribution of students, by level of instruction within the 
University? The answers to these questions and others like them arrived 
at by the University of Illinois working alone cannot be final. They need 
to be related to the programs in other institutions, to the development of 
junior colleges, and to the needs of the State as a whole for new programs 
and services. 

At this point, it is well to emphasize that the picture of duplication and 
conflict among the state universities today is in some ways distorted and 
often exaggerated. There has been a considerable degree of coordination 
in Illinois by legislation, by decisions of the Governors of the State, by 
voluntary cooperation among institutions, and through the Joint Council 
on Higher Education. It is true, nonetheless, that the plans of the future 
will be less efficient and economical than would exist under the best of 
coordinated planning. 


How far Illinois should go beyond state planning into the area of unified 
controls of operation is a different question, requiring serious consideration. 
How far unified administration is necessary in order to achieve effective 
state planning is a central issue. There are real doubts and apprehensions 
among professional students of plans of central control and there is honest 
division of opinion, both within the State and elsewhere, as to the efficacy 
of such arrangements for Illinois. On this subject, there is a large body of 


opinion and a relatively small body of experience and fact. The question 
must be analyzed, however, the arguments pro and con assessed. 


Coordination as a concept and coordination in a working plan may have 
entirely different appraisals. The theoretical advantages of coordination are 
obvious and must be accepted as goals in state educational planning. The 
machinery of coordination, if not carefully adapted to Illinois problems, 
and if not set up to safeguard quality, differences in institutional missions 
and operations, and faculty influence upon educational policy may in- 
duce outcomes worse than the disadvantages of the present system. There 
are dangers in unified controls of multiple institutions, as experience else- 
where has shown, and Illinois should make sure that they are not imported 
with a new scheme of management. Illinois has reason to be proud of the 
standing and achievements of its universities and any new plan should be 
measured by the degree to which it will strengthen, enlarge and improve 
education for the people of Illinois and by the extent to which it will make 
possible a greater contribution to the education of youth, to the develop- 
ment of the professions, and to the advancement and dissemination of 
knowledge. In a period of enrolment growth, program planning and com- 
plicated developments at all institutions, the question of the effects on state 
planning of altering present administrative arrangements is one to be 
weighed most seriously. 

I express the hope, moreover, that our consideration of unified control 
or administration will not interfere with our getting on with the job of 
coherent state planning which is now possible of achievement within the 
present authority of the Illinois Commission of Higher Education. 


As the Commission has considered the design of its study of unified 
administration and conducted its discussions and analyses, I have been 
given the opportunity to comment. I have stressed three points concerning 
the University of Illinois which should have primary consideration. 

1. The University of Illinois is now, in size, scope, and complexity, a 
system of higher education exceeding in these characteristics most states 
where centralized controls are now in effect. Unlike Michigan, Indiana, 
Kansas, and Iowa, in Illinois the land-grant college and comprehensive 
state university are combined. (Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and 
Nebraska are other examples of the same pattern.) Thus, in the University 
of Illinois there exists now a coordinated operation for the largest part of 

public higher education in the State. This historical fact should be taken 
into account in any consideration of a different plan. 

2. While the University of Illinois shares the function of undergraduate 
instruction with other state universities, private colleges, junior colleges, and 
private universities, it stands alone in the variety and extent of professional 
education, graduate work, research, and public service. 

Over 20,000 undergraduates are now enroled on the three campuses, and 
these enrolments will increase markedly at all locations in the years ahead. 
On this point, however, our problems are not unique except in the concen- 
tration of large numbers — a potential 20,000 in Chicago in ten years, if 
facilities are available, over 20,000 undergraduates in Champaign-Urbana 
in the same period. Thus each of these two campuses may be seen in size 
of undergraduate numbers the equivalent of several institutions combined. 
Nonetheless, while the problems of space and instruction for these enrol- 
ments are enormous, they can be approached in the same manner as are 
similar problems at other institutions of the State. 

But in the range of its research and service functions, and in the scope 
of its advanced professional and graduate education the University of 
Illinois is unique in the State. 

In advanced professional work, we need only list law, veterinary medi- 
cine, medicine, pharmacy, and the graduate year professional programs in 
engineering, commerce, teacher education, and agriculture to indicate the 
University's concentration of advanced training. 

In graduate work, the University of Illinois is one of the nation's all 
too few great centers. Among all American universities during recent years, 
Illinois has ranked among the first five in numbers of Ph.D. degrees 
awarded. 1 

In research, more people are engaged (over 700 on a full-time equivalent 
basis) than comprise the total academic staffs of many major universities 
in the country. This group is largely supported by funds from contracts, 
grants, and gifts, an amount now exceeding 12 million dollars per year. 

In its public services, the University is also unique in scope and nature. 
Agriculture and general extension carry knowledge into practical applica- 
tions in every county in the State. Clinics — speech, dental, medical, veter- 
inary — to cite a few — annually serve hundreds of thousands. Short 
courses and conferences enrol thousands more. Over 2,000 are enroled in 
correspondence instruction. The Division of Services for Crippled Children 
has a case load of over 11,000. Publications, books, pamphlets, monographs 
reach a vast audience. Radio and television broadcasting, the counseling of 
the Small Homes Council, the services of the largest educational film 

1 Index to American Doctoral Dissertations, Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 18, No. 7, 
University Microfilm, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1959. 


library in the nation — through these and many other channels, the Uni- 
versity educationally serves the citizens of Illinois in countless ways, of 
infinite value to them as individuals and to the state community. In a 
massive way, the work of the University of Illinois has contributed to the 
economic welfare, the public health, the general quality of life and work 
in this State. The kind of university Illinois has been has had a bearing on 
the kind of state community which has developed — in manufacturing, in 
agriculture, in business, in cultural affairs, in schools, and in public affairs. 

The purpose in stressing these unique contributions of the University of 
Illinois is that they cannot be as readily measured as prospective enrolments. 
Children on their way to the campuses can be counted; unborn ideas and 
the effect of the absence of service or a limitation on professional training 
cannot be calculated; the failure to train enough scientists and college 
teachers cannot readily be put on a graph. 

Quality and productivity of the University are influenced greatly by how 
the University is organized and how it operates. The present standards and 
achievements must be preserved and enhanced. 

3. My third point of emphasis before the Commission is not unique at 
the University of Illinois, but it has special concern for us. 

In a statement to the Commission, 1 I said: "The relationships between 
faculty and administration in the several universities must be carefully 
assessed. Quality in our universities is determined by our faculties, and the 
part that faculty action must have in the government of our institutions is 
a vital part of any consideration of unified control. An analysis of current 
responsibilities of the faculties should be at hand for the use of any study 

Later, I made the additional point that organized faculties should be 
heard in the appraisal process. 

The point I originally made, however, goes beyond a procedure for 
appraisal of the Commission's recommendation. The nature and scope of 
faculty government in institutions at present, and its place in each proposed 
alternate plan, should have careful assessment. 

By tradition, practice, and specific statute, the University of Illinois now 
operates in a manner in which the faculty has a fundamental responsibility 
in the educational policy determination of the institution. We believe the 
existence of this tradition has had a bearing upon the general excellence 
of the University of Illinois. Some measure of this element, as it applies to 
administration and organization, should certainly find its way into the basic 
considerations of the Commission study. 

1 Faculty Letter, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, September 8, 1959. 



In summary, on this point, in representing the University in its relation- 
ships with the Commission of Higher Education, we have stressed the 
importance of state planning and have cooperated in all efforts to promote 
this objective. We have given professional counsel when requested and 
readily supplied information about the operation of the University. A 
delegate from the Board of Trustees attends all meetings of the Commission. 
Five major studies have been conducted, or are in process, by staff members 
of the University, in addition to three formal presentations by the President 
and continuing committee participation by six others. The University has 
refrained from recommending development of branches and other major 
innovations, pending the creation of a state plan. I have also expressed 
willingness to present our plans for expansion to the Commission as a part 
of the appraisal process. 

In our relationship with the Commission, even in expressing our con- 
cern for the preservation of the unique features of the University of Illinois 
and apprehension over certain aspects of unfied administration, we have 
tried to act with professional candor and objectivity. We have taken the 
position that the organization of the University is public business; that the 
University staff should offer counsel, appraisal, reports of experience, even 
opinions, but that they should not become the voice of an action program, 
pro or con. Further, we are mindful that when the tentative recommenda- 
tions of the Commission are before us at some future point, both the Uni- 
versity faculty and the Board of Trustees must then be free, without prior 
commitment, to give their best judgment on what is good for the University 
of Illinois and the people of the State. 

Within this pattern of relationships, we shall continue to cooperate with 
the Commission in the important work assigned to it. 


III. The Chicago Undergraduate Division 

The establishment of a division of the University of Illinois on a perma- 
nent campus in the Chicago area is an old subject. Proposed in the first 
year of the University's existence, the idea was discussed intermittently, but 
abstractly, until 1946 when the return of veterans from World War II 
required unprecedented action. The Chicago Undergraduate Division was 
then established and located in leased space on Navy Pier. The Division 
is now regarded by the University, the Chicago community, and the State 
as a permanent unit of the University of Illinois to serve commuting stu- 
dents in the Chicago area. 

The educational facilities — sixty-eight classrooms, thirty-three labora- 
tories, and a library of 85,000 volumes — are housed in the first and part of 
the second level of the north wing of Navy Pier. At present, 4,067 students 
are enroled. Since its origin, the Division has enroled over 65,000 students 
in regular or summer sessions. The University has provided these young 
people of the Chicago area with a sound educational program in the first 
two years of liberal arts and sciences, engineering (including architecture 
and art), commerce and business administration, and physical education. 

Unfortunately severe physical limitations handicap the present work and 
pose greater difficulties for the future. The maximum enrolment possible 
in Navy Pier facilities is 4,500, a number which will be reached by Septem- 
ber, 1960 or 1961. In succeeding years, many prospective students will 
be turned away. 


In its present location, the University shares its space with activities 
which discourage effective teaching. Foreign and domestic freighters dock 


along the south wing; trucks rumble up and down, switch engines and box 
cars pound their way in and out. Thousands of visitors annually tramp 
their way through conventions, trade fairs, and exhibitions housed in the 
upper level, on occasion preempting educational space. Too, the facilities, 
which were not ideal even in 1946, have deteriorated, and major rehabilita- 
tion has not taken place in light of the continuing prospect that the Uni- 
versity would be removed from its Pier location. The University and the 
City of Chicago have been hesitant to make long-term investments in im- 
provements for educational use which would be of no value once the move 
from Navy Pier is completed. Further, as the City prepares the Pier for 
heavy seaway traffic, the conditions resulting from construction have be- 
come nearly intolerable for students and faculty. These factors explain the 
urgency with which the University regards the need for relocation and alone 
justify a move now, if one were possible. This urgency is compounded by 
the impending greatly increased enrolment demand. 


Present plans call for development of the Chicago campus in several 
stages. The first is for buildings to house the two-year programs currently 
offered on Navy Pier. This stage is to be completed by 1963, enlarging 
enrolment capacity to 6,000. The second stage is establishment of four-year 
degree programs in a limited number of fields of instruction, with courses 
to be added as soon after 1963 as physical facilities and operational funds 
can be made available. As the need for additional courses arises, and as 
soon thereafter as the proper physical facilities and staff can be provided, 
in consultation with the Illinois Commission of Higher Education and the 
other institutions concerned, extensions of existing curricula or additional 
ones will be offered. 

The Board of Trustees, members of the administrative staff and com- 
mittees of the faculty have given these plans continuous attention and have 
worked perseveringly for action. Funds for planning have been made 
available and it is agreed that appropriations for capital structures will be 
a part of the regular University requests to the General Assembly as needed 
to implement plans. As with all other building plans of the University, the 
Chicago development will be affected by the outcome of the bond issue, 
but campus and building plans must go forward so that time will not be 
lost when appropriations become available. 


Procuring a site has been a troublesome issue. The Board of Trustees 
has been wrestling with the problem for over four years. Although the 


Trustees preferred a west suburban location, they acknowledged the interest 
of the City of Chicago in having the campus within the city and agreed 
to accept such a site if one could be made available within the time schedule 
noted above and at no greater cost than that required for the suburban site. 
The city sites then studied were Northerly Island, on the Lake front, 
Garfield Park, and the area which would be released by the proposed con- 
solidation of railroad terminals. Of the three, it has been the judgment of 
the Trustees that only the Garfield Park site could be made ready for occu- 
pancy by 1963. Planning for the utilization of that site has been authorized 
and is underway. If there is any new information in the recently announced 
report from the Mayor's office which would justify a change in that judg- 
ment, the Board of Trustees will consider it promptly. There is no reserve in 
the time estimate for planning and construction, however, and any interrup- 
tion in planning, even for a short period, will result in passing the opening 
of the academic year and a delay in occupancy of at least twelve months. 
It is to be emphasized that while 1963 is not the peak year in enrolment 
demands, the capacity of Navy Pier will be exceeded before that year; that 
conditions are now unsatisfactory, even for the present enrolment; and 
finally, that the new campus must be occupied and organized before expan- 
sion into degree programs is possible. Even now, that expansion is barely 
possible in time for the accelerated growth. 


These developments in Chicago are of concern to the University as a 
whole. If the balanced program and related distribution of students at 
Champaign-Urbana, recommended by the Future Programs Committee 
and discussed at length in the State of the University address of a year ago, 
are to be attained, the Chicago Undergraduate plans must be fulfilled. 
The Chicago campus serves many students who would not attend the 
Champaign-Urbana campus, but there is some overlap. 

The University will continue to enrol large numbers of freshmen and 
sophomores, both in Chicago and at Champaign-Urbana, but the greatest 
growth at this level will take place in Chicago. Any delay in the Chicago 
development will mean an interruption of orderly planning for the Univer- 
sity as a whole, including a better balance among levels of instruction at 
Champaign-Urbana, and a limitation upon the educational opportunities 
to be made available by the University of Illinois in the area of the State 
where over half its people live. 

I cannot overemphasize how urgent it is that the University's time table 
be met. We are already three years late. The Board of Trustees has done 
everything within its power to proceed in a business-like fashion to meet 


this problem squarely and with due regard to the welfare of the entire Uni- 
versity, the needs for higher education in Chicago and in the State. No 
Board of Trustees of the University has had a more complex task than 
selecting a site for the Chicago Undergraduate Division and solving the 
problems involved in successful action on a time schedule which will allow 
a reasonable continuation of service. They should be heartily commended 
for their devotion to this objective. 


IV. The 1960 Bond Issue Referendum 

This year is the third in which the subject of a bond issue referendum 
and its meaning to the University of Illinois has been before us. 

In 1957, I stated that the proposal for a bond issue to create a fund for 
state buildings, was a practical proposal to supplement existing appropria- 
tions with borrowed funds for the purpose of accelerating the building 
program, that it was a sound proposal to enable the state to pay for build- 
ings while they were being used and at current prices, and that it would 
also give the State a little longer time to work out an improved revenue 
structure for both operating and capital budgets. 

In 1958, I reported the results of the election. The referendum was 
endorsed by a majority of those voting, but the plurality was not sufficient to 
overcome the failure of 689,393 people who voted in the general election to 
mark the bond issue ballot. Had one-half of these voters marked their 
ballots on the bond issue and divided evenly the referendum would have 
carried. It is both ironic and tragic that the fate of our universities should 
be determined by those not voting! 

I also reported a year ago that the building needs of the University 
remained exactly as they were before the election, that they were serious, 
and that only prompt and effective action by the legislature could prevent 
a deterioration in quality of service and a failure to meet rising enrolments 
and other mounting obligations. 

In preparing the capital budget for 1959-61, the University had before 
it the thorough analysis made by the Building Program Committee for the 
decade 1959-1969. The needs there outlined were of two kinds — those 
which would help the University to catch up with accumulated space and 
facilities deficits and those anticipated for future requirements. From this 
inventory, only the immediately urgent were selected for inclusion in the 


request for the current biennium. These amounted, in cost estimates, to 
$54,879,000 for the three campuses. 

Of this budget request, the sum finally allowed was limited to $14 million. 
The $14 million was allocated to site acquisition and site planning for the 
Chicago Undergraduate Division, plans for buildings on all campuses, 
matching gifts and grants for three small structures, remodeling for emer- 
gency space relief or to meet fire and safety standards, limited local public 
improvement, and enlarging the utilities system. But even these appropria- 
tions have been "frozen," since it will not be known for some time the 
extent to which state revenues will be available to finance them, and the 
present prospect for their release is not bright. Thus, not only will major 
new academic buildings not be started in this biennium; even the self- 
liquidating "fee" buildings — dormitories, student service and health service 
quarters, and the Union addition — will be held up for lack of utilities. 
Some students will be turned away in 1961 because of lack of facilities; 
the most critical need is for staff offices. The earliest the next major aca- 
demic facility may be occupied is four years from now — assuming building 
appropriations are made and financed in the legislative session of 1961, 
and they will have to be three times as large as those made in any biennium 
in the last decade to prevent restrictions in present academic programs. 
Equally serious, in terms of the efficiency of on-going operation, funds for 
remodeling, land-acquisition, and alterations to meet unanticipated develop- 
ments are not available. 

In short, at a time when we face great increases in enrolment (and the 
facts of population increase are common knowledge), we must prepare for 
restricting that enrolment. At a time when there is a crying need for an 
increase in specialized and professional training in all fields, we are obliged 
to set limits. At a time when the economy of the state and the welfare of 
the nation call out for more and more research in the fundamental fields 
of knowledge, we are obliged to discourage faculty members from seeking 
outside funds because there is no adequate space in which to do the work. 

It is my unhappy duty to say to you that we are not ready at the Uni- 
versity of Illinois for the demands which confront us and which the people 
of the State have every reason to assume we should be ready to fulfil. A 
new campus for the Chicago Undergraduate Division, new facilities and 
remodeling for the Research and Educational Hospitals and the Chicago 
Professional Colleges and a long list of basic requirements for the Urbana 
campus, add up to major issues for the people of Illinois. 

Proud as we are of what has been done in the past, we must seek public 
understanding of the great needs now upon us. Only prompt and un- 
precedented action can prevent a limitation of educational opportunity or 
a dimunition of quality of educational service or both. There is not much 


time to head off a critical situation. We have lost the time margin for 
normal planning and development. Urgency is now upon us. Those who 
hoped that a bond issue would not be necessary now have the fact of present 
inadequacies before them. There is no reason to assume the next meeting 
of the legislature will be able to meet this problem. Indeed, it is doubtful 
if any legislature should be encouraged to seek recurring tax revenues for 
these essentially non-recurring requirements, at least non-recurring in their 
present proportions. The accumulated necessities require unusual handling. 
A business enterprise borrows capital to meet its expansion requirements, 
and then pays for the expansion as the plant is used. The public must 
consider the application of this plan to the universities. 

A bond issue proposal will again be on the ballot in 1960. Many issues 
other than the needs of the University will be involved. However, the 
point must be driven home that the future of the University will be greatly 
affected by the outcome. This fact must be more carefully weighed and 
better understood than it was in the last referendum. 

The referendum on the bond issue in 1960 will be a climactic opportunity 
for the people of Illinois to express themselves about the future of higher 
education in this state. Without the success of that referendum, the road 
ahead will be uncertain and the travel slow, with the risk that at the very 
time this state should be preparing for its great future we shall mark time 
or lose ground. I see no other alternative before us in supplying the need 
for an accelerated building program for our state colleges and universities. 
In the year ahead I hope that all of us will take every opportunity to make 
this point clear. 

The task of interpreting the needs of the University and the relationship 
of the bond issue referendum to fulfilling those needs falls upon all of us. 
While organizational machinery has been formed — including internal and 
interinstitutional staff committees, the job will get done only by a marshal- 
ling of the interest of all members of the university family and of all citizen 
leaders of the state who are concerned about the issues which are here 
outlined. The normal channels of communication are not adequate to 
achieve the widespread popular understanding which must prevail for a 
favorable response to the referendum. 

A bond issue is not a popular device. "Pay as you go" is a popular if 
misleading slogan. An appeal to fear of increased taxes is persuasive. Long- 
range needs are remote from the concerns of every day. Other issues in 
the election of 1960 will be distracting. Since the vote will be larger than 
in 1958, the majority required will be larger. The opposition will be in- 
tensified. We have as allies in the cause, however, the belief of the people 
in educational opportunity and the tradition of this State for quality and 
scope in educational service. If faculty, students, staff, alumni, parents — 


and the parents of the children on the way to the campuses of the state — 
unite in the greatest interpretive effort ever put forth on a public question 
in Illinois, the issue can be won. The experience in California, New York, 
New Jersey, North Carolina point the way. Illinois is no less able and no 
less resourceful. 

When we speak of space needed for new enrolments, we mean rooms, 
chairs, desks, beds, laboratory benches, libraries. Beyond these basic require- 
ments, however, is the fact that more than ever before facilities are a 
factor in achieving excellence — facilities to enable distinguished faculty to 
do their work, facilities to enable students to be taught properly. In the 
complex teaching and investigation of today, laboratories, libraries, offices, 
seminars and lecture rooms are the essential tools of the faculty. While a 
university is its people, their work can be first rate only when they have the 
means with which to do work of quality. 

These generalizations are not contested. Our task is to give them mean- 
ing in the consciousness of the people as they consider the bond issue ques- 
tion. They must know that the alternative to prompt and greatly increased 
financial support is to turn away thousands of young people who are on 
their way to the campuses of the public universities of the state and to 
suspend program and research growth until we find a way to get on with the 
job. To those who say "Pay as you go," we can only respond that the wel- 
fare of our colleges and universities in their service to the people should not 
be an instrument of strategy for tax reform, that our institutions should 
not be hurt, or their doors closed even part way or educational opportu- 
nities be limited while tax reform is debated. In the failure of the last 
referendum, two years were lost in preparing for the needs here outlined. 
There is no more time to spare. 

Our choice seems to be at this moment in our history, accelerated ex- 
penditures on higher education by the means now suggested, or a condition 
of education and research limited in a way that will have serious repercus- 
sions in our economy, our health, our defense, and our citizen morale. 


V. The Real Competition 

After working with two General Assemblies of Illinois, and participating 
in numerous meetings of citizens, alumni, parents, and on many other 
occasions throughout the State over the past four years, I want to say as 
directly as I know how that the University is in a serious competition for 
the interested attention of the people of Illinois. Unless we have that 
attention, we shall not have the kind of support given in the past or 
accelerated for the needs of the present and future. 

By attention, I do not mean the passing interest given to current events 
or public occasions. I refer to a continuing personal concern for the welfare 
of the University, an abiding feeling of the direct relationship between what 
the University stands for and what it does and the individual welfare of the 
citizen, his family, and of his community. Widespread personal commitment 
by citizens to work for the advancement of the University is needed to have 
the University grow in the strength needed for the tasks ahead. 

Our competition is not with the programs and activities of other uni- 
versities. It is with all the things that claim the citizen's attention and with 
which he is daily confronted — his concern with public expenditures and 
taxes, with inflation, with national defense, with highways and local civic 
services, with appeals for private charity, with job opportunities, with in- 
creased costs of living, with political issues, with his health, recreation, and 
personal growth and his family's well-being. 

In the current discussions of the problems of higher education, there is 
the easy generalization that the public institutions will somehow or other 
pick up the additional load, both in students and in the other demands 
upon them. That public institutions are eager and willing to continue the 
great tradition for which they were established there is no doubt, but that 
their capacity to carry this historic role will require more support than has 
yet been measured is not generally understood. 


It is not enough that people applaud the idea of educational opportunity 
and high standards of performance as a means to economic progress and 
international strength; it is essential that ways and means be found to pay 
for them. ". . . Perhaps the greatest problem facing American education 
today is the widely held view that all we require are a few more teachers, 
a few more buildings, a little more money. Such an approach will be 
disastrous. We are moving into the most demanding era in our history. 
An educational system grudgingly and tardily patched to meet the needs of 
the moment will be perpetually out of date. We must build for the future 
in education as daringly and aggressively as we have built other aspects of 
our national life in the past." 1 

It has been said that educational institutions reach the summits of 
greatness only by long and arduous efforts. This thought is comforting in 
suggesting that temporary defeats and discouragements are not controlling 
in the ultimate destiny. Any experienced observer will attest, however, that 
the lag of a year is a drag for a decade and the slowdown of even a short 
period can be the difference between mediocrity and excellence. 

The period immediately ahead is one of great decision for Illinois. The 
needs outlined here are not, in a sense, the needs of an institution; they 
are needs of a State for the fulfilment of a great role of leadership and 
achievement. Usually, growth and progress, in the history of an institution 
or a state are determined by the cumulative effect of many small decisions. 
Such a pace will not suffice in the matters now before us. I have confidence 
that with the continuing professional dedication of the faculty and staff, 
with the understanding and help of the Board of Trustees, with the respect 
and faith of the people of Illinois, the University will continue to grow in 
stature and strength and we shall remember these days as among the greatest 
in the record of our time. 

1 The Rockefeller Report, The Pursuit of Excellence, Education and the Future 
of America. Panel Report V . . . Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New 
York. 1958. p. 33. 



3 0112 111981285